New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-03-18
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
TWO VIEWS OF rae EVOLUTION THEORY

SHE oi 3 r. copx. a. u Pa D. svo. pp. XIX, 467. D.
Appleton n Ca.
A oreatise on the great question OF Crealon of
Gyol utiou by one who Is neither naturahss noe
\ theoiogian, and who does noe profess TO Drlne
so the discussion a special equipment In either OF
The sciences which the controversy arrays against
each other may seem strange at first s1ght; Duo
AR Curtis will satisfy the reader, before many
naees have been turned, that no has q substantial
contribution to make to the debate, and that his
hook Is one to be treated with respect His part
is TO apply to the reasonDgs Of the men OF siehce
tho rigid scrutiny with which the lawyer Is nc
customed TO test the value and perflnehey u 'e'
timony, and the legitimacy or ln1eehces iroin
established facts The trained legal nina Ii g"
lable of rendering q service OF ohe iishee0 '"
In the investigation of problems such as that no"
-. s ana there arc some reasons why MIR.
rurtiss severe logical methods seem to DO here
,art;cu,arlv useful. The doctrine of evolution
Is not one that proves itselfwhen the ascertained
facts arc once set forth and arranged ; IL mas W
be proved with the help OF differences anaiogles
and metaphysical arguments which many natural
lists it must be confessed, are in the habit OF en-
blowing loosely. Mr. Curtis's complaint OF Tie
dogmatism OF some of tho followers Of Mr. Darwin
Is as ust as his tribute to the philosophical can
dor of Mr. Darwin himself. We are too oiben
assured that the doctrine Of evolution Is now SO
mental incapacity. Is it then really demon
strated truth or is it theory approved by ma
nority of paturalisS but still only theory resting
TO some extent upon conjecture Here the man
of science is not necessarily our best GUIDE. we
trust him for the observation and collection OF
phenomena: tho legitimacy Of the conclusions
drawn from them may perhaps be more accurately
examined by a different order OF mind.
Mr. Curtis is a firm believer in au almighty
beneficent Creator, who has not only set the uni
verse in motion and order but has produced the
various SPECIES of plants and animals by special
creation. For the purpose of the present work.
however he puts aside all consideration of re-
Sealed zion, and refrains from what may DC
ea,led a theological treatment Of the subject lie
ACCEPTS without question the scientific statement
of the facts discovered in relation to the history
of life on this earth, and endeavors to apply To
the Interpretation Of these facts the same dis
passionate reasoning which he would wish To use
In reading any other phenomena The result
of my study of the hypothesis of evolution he
saws, lis that it is ingenious but deluslve
mode of accounting for the existence Of either
the body or the mind Of man and that il employs
n kind Of reasoning which no person oil SOUND
Judgment would apply to anything that mehU
affect his welfare. his happiness, his estate OF MS
conduct in the practical affairs OF HE. Inc
positions Of Mr.. Curtis may be briefly stated thus
!. The facts adduced by the evolutlonSts are not
sufficient to prove their theory, since their chalh
of proof always wants some links, which they seek
to supply by inference, conjecture or the eXpeeta-
tion that the missing PARTS will hereafter be dis
covered. 2. All the facts are consistent with the
hypothesis Of special creations. B. The doctrine
of special creation furnishes the shhpest ana
most satisfactory explanation Of the universe A.
The existence and attributes of God are deduciolc
from phenomena by the human reason Irrespective
of revelation. AS an introduction to the hrHt
point Mi Curtis gives a very clear and useful eA-
position Of q rule of evidence often overlooked |
in the discussion of this subject When the truth
of a proposition is TO be established by tie CO.
existence of number Of distinct facts it is es-
sentia hat every fact In the collection Of proofs
from which we arc TO draw the conclusion shall |
be proved independently by direct evidence. We
are not allowed to infer fact from some other
fact and then unite the inference with two or
more independent facts TO make chain of proofs |
In tie language Of the law we may |
not draw inference from an inference. |
This. however, is precisely what many advocates
of the evolution theory are constantly doing. No
evidence has ever been found of the change of one
species Of animal plant into another; but from
the crossing OF varieties and the progressive re-
semblances among species il Is inferred that such
chances have taken place. and this inference is
then slipped into the chain OF proof from which a
broader inference is to be drawn. 1t is allowable
10 employ analogy in constructing theory, but
when there are numerous links in supposed
chain OF proofs that are established by nothing
but an inference drawn from an analogous fact,
the collection of supposed proofs does not exclude
the probable truth OF every other hypothesis but
that which is sought to be established, it also
does not establish the theory in favor Of which
the supposed facts are adduced." Upon these
principles of evidence author proceeds TO cx-
anime the Daiwinian theory Of the descent OF
man and he finds rs a matter of course numerous
short breaks in the pedigree which evomtionists
are in the habit of bridging over by the assump
ton that there were intermediate forms, now ex
tnct, which paleontology has not yet discovered.
But If evolution has not been proved by the
existing array Of testimony il at most il has only
been rendered probable, have not the discoveries
of science made the special creation theory so
fagrantly improbable that longer just-
fed in entertaining it? TO this Mr. Curtis
swers alphabetically No; and he argues that all
the phenomena upon which the evolutioniss rely
fit in perfectly and easily with the doctrine of di
vine intervention. II there are striking rescm-
blances Of structure in the animal kingdom, II
the complexity gradually increasing as we rise
higher in the scale is accompanied by persistent
adherence to q type, If at certain stages or en-
bryonic life there is an identity between man and
the lower animals, If the advanced stages OF de-
velopment in animals correspond exactly with
tho incomplete development of others-these facts
do not prove the evolution Of all animal forms
from one primitive stock, but arc far more simply
explained upon the hypothesis that the Creator
worked with a unity Of plan. On this theory
there is no reason why identities and resemblances
should not abound variety would be introduced
only when and where il became useful The ar
gument drawn by evolutionists from the useless
documentary organs which appear to have been in
herited by some of the higher animals from the
lower species Is less effectively answered The
counter arguments from the difficulty in account